Impressionist Sculptures
Medardo Rosso, Femme à la voilette dit aussi Impression de boulevard, 1895, exemplaire réalisé en 1907, cire jaune sur âme de plâtre 75 x 62,5 x 26 cm, envoi de l’État en 1931 ; dépôt du Centre national des arts plastiques, Lyon, musée des Beaux-Arts. Source : Lyon, musée des Beaux-Arts / Alain Franchella.


Auguste-Louis-Marie Ottin, Jeune fille tenant un vase, 1861, marbre, 115 x 31 x 25,5 cm, Poitiers, Musée Sainte-Croix. Source : Musées de Poitiers, Christian Vignaud.
Describing Impressionist Sculpture ?
‘Impressionist sculpture’ epitomizes the dilemma categorical labelling systems propose. Narrow definitions are implied with such terminology when, in fact, the sculpture here is reflective of the heterogeneous art-making practice preferred by many artists of the 19th century and beyond. Those practicing sculpture and pushing past the boundaries of academic norms approached it with a central goal being the exploration of materials. Often, this initially looked stylistically more traditional before eventually branching out in both their materials and their technique.
Many adjectives have been employed to describe ‘Impressionist sculpture’ both today and at the time of its creation. Critics, including Charles Euphrussi, Joris-Karl Huysmans, and Paul Mantz, have commented on rough, unidealized, scientifically-observed results with looser, more unfinished-looking surfaces that can be indicative of movement, thus suggesting qualities that overlap with those of painting. But many of these characteristics can be found in sculpture bearing other labels as well.
‘Impressionist sculpture’ can often be found under the banner of Realism, as both focused on contemporaneity and temporality. The impermanent, unstable, or changing – as opposed to the perfect or timeless – was considered more reflective of the modern condition. As Linda Nochlin notes in her seminal text, the Impressionists, and French Realists more generally, needed to arrive at new ways of creating art as their experiences changed [1] . ‘Naturalism’ is another label tied to the Realists and the Impressionists, though varying avenues of it produced conservative and avant-garde art simultaneously during the Third Republic. Clearly, many of these labels, however convenient, bleed too easily into one another.
With the classification of artworks comes the challenge of the classification of the artists themselves. Do Impressionist artists necessarily create Impressionist sculpture? Not all sculptures created by those bearing this label fit into the stereotypical parameters of Impressionist art nor were they all exhibited at the official Impressionist exhibitions. ‘Impressionist sculpture’ is evidence of the flexibility of these categories. Nevertheless, out of this variety certain commonalities emerge allowing a clearer understanding of this important medium and those who practiced it.

Paul Gauguin, Émile Gauguin, vers1877–78, marbre, 43 × 23,2 × 20 cm, Gift of the Joseph M. May Memorial Association Inc., 1963, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Source : The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain.
At the Exhibitions
Sculpture constituted a small percentage of the artworks shown at the 8 official Impressionist exhibitions and, consequently, its significance has been undermined. However, with ‘sculptors’ as the 3rd party listed in the Société’s official title and sculpture appearing at 6 of the 8 exhibitions, it seems unwise to ignore this branch of their practice. The 17 sculptures presented at these exhibitions varied wildly in their media and execution.
Auguste-Louis-Marie Ottin (1811-1890) exhibited 10 sculptures at the 1st Impressionist exhibition. Unlike many of the other artists present, including those who would later exhibit sculpture, only Ottin had been academically trained primarily as a sculptor. Though a recipient of many official commissions from the State, Ottin was actively involved in the Société from its inception. The works he presented in 1874 were academic in execution and theme, causing them to stand apart from the less conventional artwork on display. He included several busts and Jeune femme portant un vase (1861) ; the latter was included twice, both in marble and in terracotta. Ottin’s offerings evidence his desire to appeal to the potential buying public as his works were all small scale and varied in media.
The next appearance of sculpture came in 1879, with a work not dissimilar in style to Ottin’s by Paul Gauguin (1848-1903). This marble bust of his son Émile (1877-78) evidences a classical approach to the material, signalling an awareness of Greco-Roman traditions favoured by the Academy. The following year, the bust of his wife Mette, which was well received by many critics, shows similar interests.

Edgar Degas, Petite danseuse de quatorze ans, modèle entre 1878 et 1881, fonte entre 1921 et 1931, statue en bronze patiné, tutu en tulle, ruban de satin, socle en bois,98 x 35,2 cm, Achat avec la générosité des héritiers d'Edgar Degas et de la famille Hébrard, 1931,Paris, musée d'Orsay. Source : Musée d’Orsay, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Patrice Schmidt
Edgar Degas’s (1834-1917) foray into sculpture also began in the late 1870s and his sculptural debut was set to be the 5th Impressionist exhibition in 1880, the catalogue for which announced a wax statue titled Petite Danseuse de 14 ans. A display case stood ready in the room but it remained empty. It was not until the exhibition of 1881 that the public encountered the young girl. Though Degas sculpted extensively in wax throughout the 1880s and 90s, this was the only work he formally exhibited; it is now better known through 28 bronze reproductions, completed posthumously. The wax Danseuse posed proudly at ¾ life sized with a real hair wig, a cream-coloured silk bodice, a ribbon, a tutu, and painted features; it was considered ugly by many and an affront to the medium.
While many critics reacted to the exhibitions, commentary on sculpture did not begin in earnest until 1881 and Degas’s work dominated the discussion [2] . “Good God! We are going to see Impressionist sculptors!” exclaimed the critic Jules Claretie upon seeing Degas’s Petite Danseuse; this marked the first known reference to “Impressionist sculpture [3]“. Charles Ephrussi placed Degas at the head of the true independents within the group. He saw the ballerina as frighteningly ugly but also moving and wise. “Voilà vraiment une tentative nouvelle, un essai de réalisme en sculpture [4]“.
Joris-Karl Huysmans cited Degas’s wax statue as the most curious thing he exhibited that year. With the “terrifying reality” of this sculpture, he felt Degas had done away with the perfection of the white sculpture of the Academy, annihilating those traditions. Huysmans talked about other sculptors who have failed at the mission of revitalising sculpture: “… cette statuette est la seule tentative vraiment moderne que je connaisse, dans la sculpture [5]“.

Paul Gauguin, La chanteuse, 1880, 54 x 51 x 13 cm, bois, Copenhague, Ny Carlsberg GLyptotek. Source : Wikimedia CC0 Public Domain / DR.
But Degas’s sculpture was not alone in 1881. At the 6th exhibition, Gauguin exhibited two polychromatic wooden sculptures: La Chanteuse, a medallion from 1880, and Dame en promenade, a free-standing figure also from 1880. Both of these focus on themes of modern life, which proved popular with Impressionist painters. Respected critic Paul Mantz alerted his public to sculpture’s broader presence in 1881, noting the Independents’ attempt to rejuvenate this medium, which they had previously left alone. Though not entirely negative, Mantz echoed other critics’ concerns that year about the manifestation of “Impressionist Sculpture” and singled out Gauguin’s Chanteuse:
“ Ce morceau hardi semble inspiré par cette pensée que la réalité n’est qu’une chimère dont un artiste vraiment libre ne doit pas s’occuper beaucoup. Appliqué à un art qui vit de la forme, ce principe entraîne d’étranges conséquences [6]. ”

Paul Gauguin, La Toilette, 1882, poirier monochrome, 34,1 x 55 x 7 cm, Acquisition réalisée avec le soutien du Fonds Régional d'Acquisition pour les Musées, Etat/Conseil Régional d'Alsace 1998, Strasbourg, musée d'Art moderne et contemporain. Source : Musées de la Ville de Strasbourg / Navigart, domaine public.
Mantz’s insistence that sculpture’s reliance on form made it necessarily indebted to reality suggests that deviation from this would make a sculpture unsuccessful. So, the two artists presenting sculptural works in 1881, Degas and Gauguin, are both criticized but for different issues: the former was seen as relying too heavily on reality, to the point of ugliness, and the latter was chastised for not engaging with reality enough. In spite of this, it was Degas who was singled out as the “Impressionist sculptor”, this was likely due to the perceived differences in innovation between the artists’ works.
The following year, Gauguin showed a bust of his other son, Clovis, this time eschewing marble for a mixed media sculpture of wood and wax and, at the final exhibition in 1886, he presented his wooden relief sculpture La Toilette. In this work, he experimented with an exaggerated stylization. Paul Adam wrote in 1886 citing the Impressionists as a school of abstraction, with a focus on sensations and uncertainties. Adam stressed that Gauguin’s wooden sculpture was “un être émacié et bizarre. [7] ” Félix Fénéon also commented on Gauguin’s sculpture in his discussion and encouraged the artist to experiment and push his practice further: « c’est d’un modelé sincère et délicat, et certainement l’un des attraits de ces salles. [8] » Though he received a mixture of critiques, Gauguin’s emphasis on sculptural techniques proved so important to his practice that he insisted on exhibiting three-dimensional works at all of the 5 Impressionist exhibitions in which he participated.

Berthe Morisot, Tête de Julie Manet, modèle vers 1886, fonte 1966, bronze, 26 x 15,2 x 17,7 cm, Collection Particulière. Source : Christie's New York, Vente 2570 lot 35, DR.
Beyond the Exhibitions
By the 1880s, the Impressionists began taking a broader interest in sculpture, which coincided with a period when many focused more intently on form in their two-dimensional compositions. As interest flourished, some tried their hand without feeling the need to exhibit, including Camille Pissarro (1830-1903), who received tips from Gauguin on technique, and Berthe Morisot (1841-1895). Morisot’s only extant sculpture is Head of Julie Manet from 1887 about which she consulted Auguste Rodin. Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919) also worked with sculpture later in life with the help of Richard Guido. Others actively associated themselves with sculptors, as seen at Claude Monet (1840-1926) and Rodin’s exhibition in 1889 at the Georges Petit Galleries, which featured 145 paintings by Monet and 36 sculptures by Rodin.
Whether heralded as Impressionist, Realist, or Naturalist, Auguste Rodin’s (1840-1917) emergence as a boundary-pushing sculptor coincided with the development of Impressionism. Writer Octave Mirbeau positioned Rodin as the most accomplished sculptor of their age and described his works in visceral terms, noting they borrowed from nature without mimicking it. [9] Rodin tackled all his subjects, whether contemporary or conventional, with his novel techniques. This can be seen in his Head of Saint John the Baptist (1877/78), which, though religious in nature, retains an unfinished, sketched quality easily associated with the unvarnished canvases of Monet at their 1889 joint exhibition.
Rodin’s works also gained attention internationally during his lifetime. In 1905, British periodical The Lady’s Realm saw his work as the opposite of “conventional” and “overpolished.” [10] The article went on to include a lengthy quote from Rodin defending his practise: “Because my works are not polished to smoothness I have been accused of giving the public mere sketches, still rough and half-finished.” By 1911, Rodin was cited as not only the first Modern sculptor but also as the quintessential Impressionist sculptor in international art publications [11]. While his name remains most commonly associated with “Impressionist Sculpture”, this is not to say he was alone.
Another artist gaining commissions and working with this style was Camille Claudel (1864-1943). She worked in Rodin’s studio from 1885 until 1892 and, while her style shows his influence, as she matured in her practice, her voice is increasingly evident. Claudel dubbed many of these creations “sketches from life” and experimented with a variety of media. An example of this can be seen in The Wave: this intimate group sculpture was initially exhibited in plaster at the Salon of 1897 after which the artist recreated it using a combination of onyx marble and bronze.

Auguste Rodin, Tête de Saint Jean-Baptiste, 1877-1878, terre cuite, 31 x 24 x 21 cm, Karslruhe, Kunsthalle. Source : Karlsruhe, Kunsthalle, CC0.

Camille Claudel, La vague, 1897, fonte 1898-1903, onyx et bronze, 62 x 39 x 63 cm, Paris, musée Rodin. Source : Musée Rodin, Christian Baraja.

Medardo Rosso, Mère et enfant endormis, 1883, bronze, 39 × 28 × 20 cm, Collection Cesare Sola, Bagno a Ripoli. Source : Research Gate / Daniel Zolli.
Italian multi-media artist Medardo Rosso (1858-1928) also sought to modernize sculpture and focused on contemporary themes. Though not a part of the official Impressionist circle, Rosso’s sculptures prioritized an instantaneous absorption of his subjects as he captured their essence using indistinct edges and other unfinished qualities, which placed him at the vanguard of sculpture across Western Europe. Uniquely, Rosso promoted a privileged viewpoint of his work to correctly perceive the “impression” he created; he likened this to the singular viewpoint needed for the perception of a painting. Mère et son enfant endormis from 1883 was among the works Rosso exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1886; philosopher and critic Edmond Thiaudière reviewed this Salon and deemed Rosso the founder of “Impressionist Sculpture” [13]. This work is indicative of Rosso’s sculptural goals, featuring a sense of temporal urgency as well as continuity beyond the principal figures. Rosso’s significance was emphatically affirmed by Edmond Claris in his 1902 text, in which he positions both Rodin and Rosso as the representatives of Impressionist sculpture. Initially viewing Rodin as an inspiration and friend, Rosso eventually spoke publicly about his belief that Rodin was knowingly borrowing his techniques and methods [14]. Indeed, clear stylistic parallels can be drawn between the two, though their underlying aesthetic aims were not always aligned.
Rodin, Rosso, and Claudel all integrated the immediacy associated with Impressionist style into their works, which invites them into the discussion of Impressionist sculpture. By including characteristics indicative of the working process, aspects of their artworks can be more directly linked to typical qualities of Impressionist painting.

Medardo Rosso, Femme à la voilette dit aussi Impression de boulevard, 1895, exemplaire réalisé en 1907, cire jaune sur âme de plâtre 75 x 62,5 x 26 cm, envoi de l’État en 1931 ; dépôt du Centre national des arts plastiques, Lyon, musée des Beaux-Arts. Source : Lyon, musée des Beaux-Arts / Alain Franchella.
Wider implications
Far from stagnant or repetitive, the independent artists known as the Impressionists capitalised on variety, even within artistic media. These artists, too often narrowly associated with specific styles, challenged themselves looking to both wider trends and each other for inspiration. Their examination of sculpture evidences wider artistic trends as many began to reconsider the role of form in their oeuvres. Subtle shifts in their two-dimensional works reiterate this as they tested brushstrokes and subjects. Further, championing form over ephemeral considerations became a rallying cry for many working outside the group; various Post-Impressionists employed strong outlines and structured surfaces to emphasize mass while Cubists experimented with the fracturing of three-dimensional illusion. With this in mind, the sculpture of the Impressionists can be viewed as a bridge, linking sculpture by Degas, Morisot, and Gauguin with the flurry of Modern art movements at the end of the century. Investigating the sculptural work of the Impressionists in the 1880s clarifies the members’ desire to continually push their artistic practise and situates them more firmly within the broader context of art at the end of the nineteenth century instead of rendering them iconic but isolated.

Edgar Degas, Le Tub, 1886-1889, fonte entre 1921 et 1931, bronze patiné, 22,5 x 43,8 x 45,8 cm, achat avec la générosité des héritiers d'Edgar Degas et de la famille Hébrard, 1931, Paris, musée d'Orsay. Source : RMN-Grand Palais (Musée d’Orsay)/Hervé Lewandowski.
[1] Linda Nochlin, Realism. London: Penguin Books, 1971: 167.
[2] Other commentaries on the 6th: Bertall, “Exposition: Des Peintres intransigeants et nihilistes: 36, boulevard des Capucines,” Paris-Journal. April 21, 1881 : 1; Comtesse Louise, “Lettres familières sur l’art: Salon de 1881,” La France nouvelle, May 1–2, 1881, 3; Henry Trianon, “Sixième Exposition de peinture par un groupe d’artistes: 35, boulevard des Capucines,” Le Constitutionnel, April 24, 1881; Nina de Villars, “Variétés: Exposition des artistes indépendants,” Le Courrier du Soir, April 23, 1881, 2.
[3] Jules Claretie, “La Vie à Paris: Les Artistes indépendants,” in La Vie à Paris. Paris: 1881.
[4] Charles Ephrussi, “Exposition des artistes indépendants,” in La Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité (Supplément à la Gazette des Beaux-Arts). April 16, 1881 : 126.
[5] Joris-Karl Huysmans, “L’Exposition des indépendants en 1881,” in L’Art Moderne. Paris : Charpentier, 1883 : 225 – 227.
[6] Paul Mantz, “Exposition des oeuvres des artistes indépendants,” in Le Temps. April 23, 1881.
[7] Paul Adam, « Peintres Impressionnistes, » in La Revue contemporaine, April 1886, p546.
[8] Félix Fénéon, “Les Impressionistes,” in La Vogue, 13-20 June 1886 : 261-275.
[9] Octave Mirbeau, « Impressions d’art, » in Le Gaulois, 16 June 1886 : 1.
[10] Tiburce Beaugeard, “Auguste Rodin: Impressionism in Sculpture,” in The Lady’s Realm, XIX, 1905: 42.
[11] “Post-Impressionist Sculpture,” in The Athenaeum, 4344, 1911: 104–105.
[12] Fabienne Ruppen. “Flight of Fancy or Sculpture of the Future?: On the historical term ‘Impressionist Sculpture,’ in En Passant: Impressionism in Sculpture. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 2020 (24-41): 31.
[13] Edmond Claris. De l’Impressionnisme En Sculpture. Lettres et Opinions de Rodin, Rosso, Constantin Meunier Etc .. Paris : La Nouvelle Revue, 1902.
[14] Medardo Rosso, ‘Une lettre de Rosso’, Vie de Paris, 1 June 1906.
Melissa Berry, « Impressionist Sculptures », Impressionnisme.s [en ligne], mis en ligne le 28 Jan 2025 , consulté le 10 Feb 2025. URL: https://impressionnismes.fr/definition/impressionist-sculptures/